lEumttr  fit.ilulnt. 


No. 


The 
Strike 
Commission's 
Report 


The  Strike  Commission's  Report. 


The  report  of  the  commission  appointed  to  investigate  the  great 
strike  at  Chicago  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  documents  ever  issued 
under  the  authoiit3^  of  the  national  government.  This  is  perhaps  the 
first  instance  in  the  history  of  our  government  where  a  quasi  judicial 
body,  acting  under  a  federal  commission,  has  abused  its  powers  in 
order  to  castigate  corporate  bodies,  while  purporting  to  conduct  an 
impartial  investigation  for  the  public  welfare.  It  is  extremely  unfor- 
tunate that  the  members  of  the  commission  should  become  so  lost  to  a 
sense  of  honor  or  dignity  as  to  use  their  official  position  as  a  vehicle  to 
exploit  their  personal  prejudices. 

The  report  of  the  commission  is  remarkable  for  its  reckless  disre- 
gard of  plain  facts,  or  of  the  legitimate  inferences  dcducible  from  the 
evidence  elicited  at  the  hearing.  This  report  fairly  bristles  with  wicked 
innuendoes  and  statements  which  are  not  supported  by  the  facts.  It 
savors  of  blantant  demagoguery  rather  than  wisdom,  of  servile  parti- 
sanship rather  than  fairness.  It  discloses  the  lack  of  an  intelligent 
comprehension  of  the  social  and  economic  questions  involved  in  this 
great  controversy.  It  is  utterly  devoid  of  that  calm  and  impartial 
deliberation  and  judicial  spirit  which  characterises  the  efforts  of  a  syn- 
thetical and  high  minded  court  of  inquiry.  It  betrays  the  radical  and 
intemperate  zeal  of  the  advocate  than  the  rigid  and  impartial  scrutiny 
of  the  judge. 

It  is  painful  to  observe  that  the  strike  commission  labored  under 
the  blighting  influences  of  a  deep  rooted  bias  when  upon  the  very 
threshold  of  its  work.  This  is  evident  to  even  the  most  casual  obser- 
ver. First.  It  is  incomprehensible  that  the  commission  should  make 
the  contemptible  insinuation,  at  page  18,  that  the  Pullman  company 
employed  a  physician  with  an  ostensible  philanthropic  purpose,  but  in 
reality  to  wring  from  helpless  and  tortured  victims  of  an  accident,  a 
settlement  on  terms  most  favorable  to  the  company.  It  seems  incredi- 
ble that  the  commission  should  hint  broadly,  at  page  25,  that  the  Gen- 
eral Managers  Association,  composed  of  concededly  honorable  men, 
had  formed  a  combination  and  entered  into  an  unhallowed  alliance, 
and  raised  a  corruption  fund,  in  order  to  overreach  their  employes. 
The  General  Managers  are  shrewd  and  experienced  men,  and  it  is  a 
base  reflection  upon  their  intelligence,  to  say  the  least,  to  allege  that 
they  conspired  against  the  rights  of  their  operatives,  when  they  knew 
full  well,  from  long  practical  experience,  that  the  prime  factor  of  suc- 
cess in  railway  enterprises  is  an  harmonious  co-operation  between  the 
managers  and  the  employes,— because  the  latter  are  scattered  all  over 
the  lines,  and  thus  escape  the  personal  supervision  of  their  superiors. 
Third.  It  is  a  sad  commentary  upon  the  intelligence  of  the  commis- 
sioners, and  the  acquaintance  with  the  practical  affairs  of  railway  cor- 
porations, to  find  them  drawing  conclusions  that  the  General  Mana- 
gers' Association   was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  fighting  strikes  and 


arbitrating  wage  questions.  Most  people  of  average  intelligence  hav- 
ing even  the  remotest  knov^rledge  of  railway  matters  have  commonly 
believed  that  railway  managers  are  obliged,  in  order  to  earn  from  ten 
to  twenty  thousand  dollars  a  ,vear,  to  devote  their  attention  to  more 
serious  matters  than  strike  and  wage  questions.  These  instances  of  a 
strong  bias,  and  lack  of  practical  knowledge  of  the  questions  raised  by 
the  strike,  rendered  the  commission  wholly  unfit  to  perform  the  diffi- 
cult, not  to  say  delicate,  duty  entrusted  to  them.  And  their  report  is 
the  most  conclusive  evidence  of  this.  The  report  clearly  reflects  the 
perverted  minds  of  the  commissioners.  It  is  a  most  eloquent  tribute 
to  their  deficiency  of  practical  judgment,  or  sense  of  justice  and  equity. 

Examining  in  order  the  leading  questions  involved  in  this  great 
controversy. 

First.  The  refusal  of  the  General  Managers  Association  to  arbi- 
trate with  the  American  Railway  Union  was  right,  and  their  position 
impregnable.  The  facts  disclosed  clearly  prove  this.  And  the  commis- 
sion virtually  admits  it.  There  were  absolutely  no  questions  submit- 
ted by  the  .\.  R.  U.  which  were  legitimate  subjects  for  arbitration  as 
between  the  A.  R.  U.  and  the  General  Managers  Association,  nothing 
which  could  set  in  motion  a  court  of  arbritation,  no  relief  demanded 
which  would  have  been  binding,  legally  or  morally,  upon  the  parties  to 
the  controversy.  An  arbitration  is  but  another  form  of  an  action  at 
law.  The  General  Managers  Association  was  not  a  party  to  the  con- 
troversy between  the  Pullman  company  and  its  employes;  the  Pullman 
employes  were  not  railway  men.  Hence,  as  between  the  American  Rail- 
way Union  and  the  General  Managers  Association  there  could  be  no 
proper  joinder  of  parties,  or  issues, — and,  consequently,  no  decision 
equally  binding  upon  both  of  these  organizations.  The  onlj'  issue  be- 
tween the  American  Railway  Union  and  the  General  Managers  Asso- 
ciation was  this:  The  former  ordered  a  strike  of  railway  emploj^es 
simply  because  the  latter  refused  the  arbitary  and  utterly  unreasona- 
ble demands  to  sidetrack  the  Pullman  cars,  and  thus  involve  the  rail- 
roads in  legal  complications  with  the  Pullman  compan3',  and  perhaps 
the  State, — not  to  speak  of  the  prostration  of  railway  traffic.  Let  us 
see  how  the  commission  deals  with  this  subject.  At  page  23  of  their 
report,  the\"  say:  "To  admit  the  Pullman  shop  employes  into  the 
American  Railway  Union  as  'persons  employed  in  railway  service'  was 
not  wise  or  expedient,"  under  the  constitution  of  the  organization. 
"Such  loose  construction  of  a  labor  constitution  is  certain  to  involve 
any  organization  in  such  an  infinite  variety  of  conflicting  positions, 
and  to  force  it  into  many  contests  demanding  different  and  perhaps 
apparently  inconsistent  treatment."  And  this  was  precisely  what 
occurred.  "  To  reach  out  and  take  in  those  so  alien  toitsnatural  mem- 
bership as  the  Pullman  employes,  was.  in  the  inception  of  the  organi- 
zation at  least,  a  mistake.  This  mistake  led  the  union  into  a  strike 
purely  sympathetic,  and  aided  to  bring  upon  it  a  crushing  and  demor- 
alizing defeat."  Thus,  by  its  own  showing,  the  commission  admits 
that  the  A.  R.  U.  did  not  approach  the  General  Managers  Association 
as  plaintiffs  seeking  an  arbitration  of  specific  issues  or  grievances  of 
their  own,  but  simply  as  champions  of  the  Pullman  employes  whom 
the  commission  says  were  not  eligible  to  membership  in  that  organiza- 
tion, under  its  constitution,  and  were  "alien  to  its  natural  member- 
ship." It  follows,  then,  by  a  plain  construction  of  the  decision  ren- 
dered by  the  commission,  that  the  Pullman  employes  were  not  lawful 
members  of  the  A.  R.  U.,  and  consequently  not  entitled  to  invoke  its 
intervention  in  their  contest  with  the  Pullman  company.  It  is  clear 
that  the  Pullman  employes  joined  the  A.  R.  U.  in  order  to  secure  the 
aid  of  that  organization  in  fightingthePullmancorapany,— or,  to  whip 


the  devil  around  the  stump.  The  commission  savs  it  was  "  the  exag- 
gerated idea  of  the  power  of  the  union  (A.  R.  U.)  which  induced  the 
workmen  at  Pullman  to  join  the  order,"  and  "led  to  their  striking 
against  this  advice."— of  the  A.  R.  U.  "Having  struck,"  the  commis- 
sion says  (page  24),  "the  union  could  do  nothing  less,  upon  the  theory 
at  its  base,  than  support  them,"— the  Pullman  employes.  At  page  36, 
it  appears  that  the  union  voted  that  the  members  should  stop  hand- 
ling Pullman  cars  unless  the  Pullman  company  would  consent  to  arbi- 
tration. The  A.  R.  U.  occupied  two  wholly  inconsistent  positions:  It 
was  trying  to  force  the  Pullman  company  to  arbitrate,  and  to  compel 
the  railways  to  aid  in  this  effort,  and  because  the  latter  refused,  the  A. 
R.  U.  decided  that  this  was  a  question  for  arbitration,  i.  e.,  the  refusal 
of  the  railways  to  assist  in  bringing  the  Pullman  compan3'  to  terms, 
by  refusing  to  haul  Pullman  cars.  This  is  the  exact  logic  of  the  situa- 
tion, and  it  betrays  the  fatal  weakness  of  the  position  taken  b\'  the  A. 
R.  U.  Continuing,  the  commission  says,  at  page  36,  "The  strike  on 
the  part  of  the  railroad  employes  was  a  sympathetic  one  No  grievan- 
ces against  the  railroads  had  been  presented  by  their  employes,  nor  did 
the  American  Railway  Union  declare  any  such  grievances  to  be  any 
cause  whatever  of  the  strike.  To  simply  boycott  the  Pullman  cars 
would  have  been  an  incongruous  step  for  the  remedy  of  complaints  of 
railroad  employes.  Throughout  the  strike  the  strife  was  simplj^  over 
handling  Pullman  cars,  the  men  being  ready  to  do  their  duty  other- 
wise." By  plain  and  unequivocal  statements,  often  repeated,  the  com- 
mission admits  that  the  American  Railway  Union  had  nothing  what- 
ever to  submit  for  arbitration  to  the  General  Managers  Association. 
Even  if  the  General  Managers  Association  was  formed,  as  the  commis- 
sion insinuates,  as  a  "  strike  fighter,"  it  is  evident  that  the  commission 
itself  felt  that  there  was  nothing  to  arbitrate  as  between  this  organi- 
zation and  the  A.  R.  U.,  since  the  only  question  at  issue  between  these 
associations  was  the  hauling  of  Pullman  cars. 

In  view  of  the  relations  between  the  General  Managers  Association 
and  the  A.  R.  U.,  and  of  the  admissions  made  by  the  commission,  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why  the  commission  should  assert  at  page  28, 
that  "The  refusal  of  the  General  Managers  Association  to  recognize 
and  deal  with  such  a  combination  of  labor  as  the  American  Railway 
Union  seems  arrogant  and  absurd."  Had  the  A.  R.  U.  come  before  the 
General  Managers  Association  with  specific  grievances  of  their  own 
growing  out  of  their  relation  with  the  railways  represented  by  this 
association,  the  case  v^ould  have  been  entirely  different.  But  when  the 
A.  R.  U.  tried  to  dictate  terms  to  the  railways,  on  behalf  of  men  whom 
the  commission  expressly  declares  were  not  railway  men,  and  ineligible 
to  membership  in  the  A.  R.  U.  and  "alien  to  its  natural  membership," 
the  association  was  fully  justified  in  refusing  to  deal  with  the  union  in 
any  manner  whatsoever.  The  General  Managers  Association  was 
formed  ostensibly  to  deal  with  questions  relating  to  railways  of  a 
quasi  public  character,  and  matters  pertaining  to  car  builders,  or  pri- 
vate corporations,  was  entirely  foreign  to  its  objects,  and  it  could  not 
properly  entertain  jurisdiction  in  such  matters. 

This  phase  of  the  controversy  shows  a  studied  and  determined  pur- 
pose on  the  part  of  the  commission  to  cast  opprobrium  and  reproach 
upon  the  General  Managers  Association.  But  the  eff'ort  is  a  signal  fail- 
ure when  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  facts. — and  it  lays  bare  the  incon- 
sistency of  the  commission,  the  falsity  of  its  statements  and  conclu- 
sions.    Like  Haman,  the  commission  is  its  own  executioner. 

Second.  The  statements  made  at  page  36  of  the  report,  that  the 
strike  was  produced  by  apprehension  of  wage  reductions,  blacklisting, 
and  the  growing  power  of  the  General  Managers  Association  is  entirely 


speculative,  and  has  absolutely  no  foundation  in  fact.  When  the  com- 
mission takes  the  position  of  an  advocate,  it  should  confine  itself  to  the 
facts  in  the  case.  The  statements  show  to  what  straits  the  commission 
was  reduced  to  in  its  efforts  to  club  the  GeneralManagers  Association, 
yet  in  a  decorous  way.  Why  were  there  no  strikes,  sympathetic  or 
otherwise,  during  the  period  of  its  existence  from  188(3,  since  which 
time  the  commission  sa3'S  its  "  possibilities  as  a  strike  fighter  and  wage 
arbiter  lay  rather  dormant."  This  statement  is  of  itself  sufficient  to 
show  the  base  and  cowardly  motive  actuating  the  minds  of  the  com- 
missioners. The  wholesale  attacks,  upon  the  association  itself  were  bad 
enough,  but  the  attack  upon  its  president,  Mr.  St.  John,  is  the  culmi- 
nation of  malignity  on  the  part  ot  the  commission.  Lord  Bacon  says 
that  "it  is  the  vice  of  subtle  minds  to  attach  undue  importance  to 
small  things."  Nowhere  do  we  find  a  higher  tribute  to  the  wisdom  of 
the  great  philosopher  than  in  this  report.  At  page  26  we  find  some 
brief  excerpts  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  St.  John,  which,  standing 
alone  might  be  susceptible  of  a  construction  unfavorable  to  the  General 
Managers  Association.  But  the  manner  in  which  this  evidence  is' 
quoted,  and  the  sly  insinuations  made  in  regard  to  it,  are  suggestive 
of  a  pestiferous  pettifogger  rather  than  a  commission  created  to  inves- 
tigate great  social  and  economic  ([uestions.  The  question  of  wage 
arbitration  was  not  germane  to  the  inquir3- before  the  commission, 
because  it  was  not  a  cause  of  the  strike,— and  so  it  is  not  pertinent  to 
this  discussion  of  the  controversy.  It  w^ould  seem  that  a  uniforrn 
scale  of  wages,  fairly  adjusted,  might  properl3'  be  made  by  the  rail- 
ways, acting  through  the  General  Managers  Association, — in  order 
that  employes  of  one  road  might  not  ask  an  advance  on  the  ground 
that  other  roads  were  paxnng  such  and  such  wages. 

The  commission  indulges  in  a  long,  and  to  them,  apparently  de- 
lightful excursion  into  the  realms  of  speculative  philosophy, — when  it 
prognosticates  the  terrible  consequences  which  might  ensue  in  case  all 
railways  entered  the  alleged  unlawful  combination.  But  they  evident- 
ly forgot  to  add  that  were  all  the  railway  employes  in  this  country  to 
join  the  150,000  now  said  to  be  included  on  the  rolls  of  the  A.  K.  U. 
they  might  if  they  accepted  the  socialistic  teaching  of  this  partisan 
commission  get  excited  some  day  and  rip  up  all  the  railways  and  re- 
duce the  equipment  to  kindling  wood  and  scrap  iron,  and  hang  the 
members  of  the  General  Managers  Association  to  the  telegraph  poles 
tound  standing. 

Third.  The  General  Managers  Association  was  not  an  issue  in 
the  controversy  which  the  strike  commission  was  created  to  investi- 
gate, and  therefore,  not  a  legitimate  subject  of  consideration  by  that 
commis.sion.  The  commission  clearh'  overstepped  the  limits  of  its  au- 
thority in  dealing  with  this  association.  Prior  to,  and  during  the 
strike,  the  association  was  a  mere  passive  factor,  standing  upon  the 
defensive.  It  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  Pullman  strike, 
and  was  in  no  wise  a  party  to  that  contest.  Nor  was  it  a  cause  of 
that  contest.  It  was  not  a  cause  of  the  railway  strike, — unless  its  re- 
fusal to  sacrifice  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  roads  it  represented, 
and  to  submit  to  the  dictation  of  a  committee  of  irresponsible  labor 
agitators  was  a  cause  of  the  latter  strike.  Consequently,  this  associa- 
tion could  not.  even  by  a  strained  construction  of  the  statutes,  be  a 
legitimate  subject  for  consideration  by  the  commission  under  chapter 
1063,  section  6,  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  authorizing  them  to 
examine  "  the  causes  of  the  controversy."  No  public  complaints  were 
ever  made  against  the  association  prior  to  the  great  strike,  nor  against 
its  individual  members.  The  commission  does  not  charge  the  associa- 
tion with  an\'  unlawful  or  improper  overt  acts,  either  before  or  during 


the  strike,  but  simply  alleges  that  the  strike  of  railway  employes  was 
due  to  the  action  of  the  association  in  regard  to  wages,  and  to  fear  of 
its  growing  power  and  influence.  But  these  charges,  like  most  of  those 
which  the  commission  makes  against  this  association,  are  unsupported 
by  evidence,  and  are  utterly  disproved  by  the  facts  and  attending  cir- 
cumstances. The  General  Managers  Association  was  never  brought 
into  prominence  until  its  aggressiveness  in  protecting  the  proper- 
ties of  the  railwa3's  represented  bv  it  excited  the  animosities  of  the 
adherents  and  sympathisers  of  the  strikers.  Its  aggressiveness  and 
effective  effort  during  the  great  labor  insurrection  was  not  the  cause, 
but  the  legitimate  result  of  the  strike  of  the  railway  employes.  It  was 
drawn  into  the  controversy  in  sheer  self-defense.  It  was  not  a  predis- 
posing cause,  but  a  corrective  antidote  for  the  evil  which  originated  at 
the  Pullman  works.  As  the  commission  says,  "its  possibilities  as  a 
strike  fighter — lay  rather  dormant"  until  the  agents  of  the  A.  R.  U. 
"  urged  on  the  strike  at  every  available  point  upon  the  railroads  cen- 
tering at  Chicago  until  it  reached  proportions  far  in  excess  of  their 
original  anticipations,  and  led  to  disorders  beyond  their  control." 
These  events  aroused  the  latent  energies  of  the  General  Managers  Asso- 
ciation, and  led  to  the  interposition  of  its  all  powerful  arm  to  protect 
life  and  property  from  the  assults  of  armed  mobs,  resulting,  as  the  com- 
mission admits,  from  the  strike  set  in  motion  by  the  A.  K.  U.  The  in- 
tervention of  the  General  Managers  Association  in  the  great  contro- 
versy was  due  to  the  imperative  exigencies  of  the  times.  From  an  im- 
partial consideration  of  the  facts,  it  is  evident  that  this  association 
instead  of  being  one  of  the  "causes  of  the  controversy  "  which  the  com- 
mission was  authorized  to  investigate,  has  by  the  commission,  in  defi- 
ance of  every  principle  of  justice  and  equity,  been  ruthlessly  dragged 
into  the  controversy  and  made  the  scape-goat  upon  which  it  is  sought 
by  the  most  willful  perversion  and  strained  construction  of  the  facts, 
to  cast  the  odium  of  the  great  insurrection  and  its  disastrous  conse- 
quences. The  association  as  a  bugaboo  in  this  controversy  is  simply 
the  creature  of  the  commissioner's  distorted  imaginations;  it  is  a  mas- 
ter spirit  of  evil  hatched  within  the  misty  recesses  of  their  inner  con- 
sciousness. 

Obviously  the  chief  function  of  the  General  Managers  Association 
is  the  promotion  of  harmonious  relations  between  the  great  railwa3-s 
centering  in  Chicago,  by  the  adjustment  of  matter  incident  to  the  inter- 
change of  traffic,  and  the  settlement  of  questions  which  might  other- 
wise lead  to  perplexing  complications,  ruinous  competition,  and  the 
obstruction  of  the  broad  channels  of  trade  and  commerce.  If  its  main 
object  was  the  fighting  of  strikes  and  adjustment  of  wage  schedules,  it 
might  as  well  disloand  now, — as  those  questions  may  be  considered,  at 
least  in  so  far  as  the  roads  centering  in  Chicago  are  concerned,  as  set- 
tled for  a  generation  to  come.  It  must  have  been  evident  to  at  least 
one  member  of  the  commission,  that  the  people  have  ever  been  clamor- 
ing for  laws  to  compel  the  railroads  to  grant  equal  facilities  to  each 
other  in  the  interchange  of  traffic, — and  that  such  questions  have  been 
the  occasion  of  some  of  the  bitterest  and  most  stubbornly  fought  con- 
tests in  many  states,  and  that  the  intervention  of  railroad  commission- 
ers, and  the  courts  have  ever  been  invoked  in  order  to  compel  the  rail- 
roads to  adjust  their  difficulties  so  as  to  permit  them  properly  to  per- 
form their  public  duties.  An  organization  comprising  representatives 
of  the  twenty-four  railroads  centering  in  Chicago,  having  the  avowed 
purpose  of  settling  questions  incident  to  the  interchange  of  traffic,  and 
the  promotion  of  harmonious  co-operations  between  the  various  lines, 
and  the  adjustment  of  differences,  ought,  if  controlled  bj'  practical  and 
public  spirited  citizens  to  merit  a  large  measure   of  public  confidence. 


Its  mission  is  peace,  the  protection  of  life  and  property,  the  promotion 
of  commerce,  and  the  easy  interchange  of  traffic.  Such  an  association 
is  much  like  a  clearing  house  association  where  the  affairs  of  a  large 
number  of  banks  are  adjusted,  and  certain  regulations  prescribed  and 
enforced  for  the  practical  operation  of  fiscal  exchanges,  and  the  promo- 
tion of  commerce. 

When  confronted  again  with  such  a  formidableinsurrection  as  that 
witnessed  at  Chicago  last  summer,  the  corporations  singly  or  in  com- 
bination, will  be  fully  justified  in  arming  forces  to  protect  their  proper- 
ty, in  precisely  the  same  manner  that  individuals  may  do  under  like 
circumstances.  Everj'  man's  house  is  his  castle,  and  he  has  a  right  to 
protect  it  by  armed  force  if  necessary.  Corporations  are  but  an  asso- 
ciation of  individuals,  who  lose  none  of  their  individual  rights  by  incor- 
porating themselves. — and  there  are  no  valid  reasons  why  railway  or 
other  corporations  should  not  arm  to  protect  their  property,  whether 
railway  tracks,  elevators,  or  plants,  in  the  same  manner  as  individuals 
may  their  homes. 

In  so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  the  General  Managers  Association 
at  Chicago  was  formed  for  purely  legitimate  purposes  germane  to  the 
successful  operation  of  railways.  Its  avowed  purpose  is  a  very  com- 
mendable one.  It  has  demonstrated  its  usefulness  as  a  quasi  public 
body.  No  event  in  the  history  of  labor  troubles  has  ever  demonstated 
so  well  the  imperative  necessity  of  such  an  organization  as  that  wit- 
nessed in  Chicago  last  July.  Never  was  there  an  organization  of  this 
kind  which  proved  itself  so  equal  to  the  exigency  which  confronted  it. 
By  unity  of  action  and  firmness  of  purpose,  and  the  exertion  of  its  ready 
resources  and  ample  power,  the  General  Managers  Association  effect- 
ually prevented  the  wanton  destruction  of  life  and  property  when  the 
strikers  had  lost  control  of  themselves,  and  the  city  was  practically  at 
the  mercy  of  ruthless  and  infuriated  mobs.  It  is  a  grave  question 
w^hether  such  an  organization  at  every  large  railway  center  might  not 
prove  a  blessing  by  protecting  property  in  times  of  labor  uprisings. 
Certainly  the  General  Managers  Association  at  Chicago  has  proved 
itself  a  powerful  conservator  of  the  peace,  and  protector  of  life  and 
property, — and  it  has  fully  justified  its  existence  as  a  corrective  agent 
in  times  of  public  danger,  if  nothing  more. 

The  report  of  the  strike  commission  is  certainly  a  public  calamity. 
By  a  reckless  and  wanton  distortion  of  the  facts,  and  unjust  and  mis- 
leading conclusions,  it  has  surrounded  one  of  the  most  formidable  and 
dangerous  labor  insurrections  in  our  history  with  the  cloak  of  charity, 
and  virtually  condoned  the  terrible  offense  under  the  great  seal  of  the 
federal  government.  This  report  will  do  more  to  engender  discontent 
and  friction  between  corporations  and  employes,  and  to  excite  and  pro- 
more  bitter  internecine  feuds  than  any  document  ever  issued  under  the 
authority  of  the  national  government.  If  this  commission  and  its 
efforts  as  a  mediator  and  conciliator  between  labor  and  capital,  is  but 
a  forecast  of  v^^hat  we  may  expect  from  the  tribunal  recommended  by 
it,  we  may  all  well  exclaim  with  the  inhabitants  of  England  and 
France  in  the  Middle  Ages,  "  From  the  fury  of  the  Northmen,  O  Lord 
deliver  us." 

GEORGE  A.  BENHAM. 

Chicago,  30  November,  1894. 


/in>on\tor  press 

Rockford,  HI. 


